ArticleHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2013
Hearing the voices of service user researchers in collaborative qualitative data analysis: the case for multiple coding.
Article in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Psychosocial Needs of People With Dementia Living Alone: A Narrative Synthesis Systematic Review.Dementia (London, England) · 2026Pooled it
- What Do We Know About Sharing Power in Co-Production in Mental Health Research? A Systematic Review and Thematic Synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Pooled it
- Sleep disruption and its psychological treatment in young people at risk of psychosis: A peer methods qualitative evaluation.The British journal of clinical psychology · 2026Trial
- "It Felt Good to Be Able to Say That Out Loud"-Therapeutic Alliance and Processes in AVATAR Therapy for People Who Hear Distressing Voices: Peer-Led Qualitative Study.JMIR mental health · 2026Trial
- A peer-delivered intervention to reduce harm and improve the well-being of homeless people with problem substance use: the SHARPS feasibility mixed-methods study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Trial
- The impact of Patient and Public Involvement in the SlowMo study: Reflections on peer innovation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Trial
- "It felt very special, it felt customised to me"-A qualitative investigation of the experiences of participating in a clinical trial of CBT for young people at risk of bipolar disorder.Psychology and psychotherapy · 2021Trial
- Trial
- How, why, for whom, and in what contexts organisational and team dynamics shape, and are shaped by, service user researchers in higher education mental health research centres: a realist review protocol.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Review
- Involving patient partners as appraisers of shared decision making: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- How Lived Experience Advisory Groups Contribute to the Design and Conduct of Mental Health Research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Embedding Patient and Public Engagement in a Cancer Project: Protocol for a Qualitative Study.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- The lifeworld of people who ruminate: a qualitative phenomenological study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Including people with lived experience in the development of the self-Dehumanisation in Psychosis Scale (DiPS): a reflective account.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2025Article
- Challenging Stigma Through Experiential Learning in Clinical and Non-Clinical Mental Health Trainees.Community mental health journal · 2025Article
- Research in Partnership With Older People-Involvement in Conducting and Analysing Focus Groups.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Observational
- "It is today that counts, and today everything is fine": coping strategies utilized by parents of children treated for cancer who seek psychological support - a qualitative study.BMC psychology · 2025Article
- Article
- Difference and subordination - the epistemic struggles of collaborative knowledge production in the field of mental health.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Understanding the experiences of family, friends and carers attending Recovery Colleges: focus group study.BJPsych open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealth research is frequently conducted in multi-disciplinary teams, with these teams increasingly including service user researchers. Whilst it is common for service user researchers to be involved in data collection--most typically interviewing other service users--it is less common for service user researchers to be involved in data analysis and interpretation. This means that a unique and significant perspective on the data is absent.
aimThis study aims to use an empirical report of a study on Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for psychosis (CBTp) to demonstrate the value of multiple coding in enabling service users voices to be heard in team-based qualitative data analysis.
designThe CBTp study employed multiple coding to analyse service users' discussions of CBT for psychosis (CBTp) from the perspectives of a service user researcher, clinical researcher and psychology assistant. Multiple coding was selected to enable multiple perspectives to analyse and interpret data, to understand and explore differences and to build multi-disciplinary consensus.
resultsMultiple coding enabled the team to understand where our views were commensurate and incommensurate and to discuss and debate differences. Through the process of multiple coding, we were able to build strong consensus about the data from multiple perspectives, including that of the service user researcher. DISCUSSION: Multiple coding is an important method for understanding and exploring multiple perspectives on data and building team consensus. This can be contrasted with inter-rater reliability which is only appropriate in limited circumstances.
conclusionWe conclude that multiple coding is an appropriate and important means of hearing service users' voices in qualitative data analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.